Hollywood wants to own your outputs (and that’s a good idea)

Opinion: the cable industry's top man in Washington wants to make his case to …

We like to encourage debate in hot topics in tech policy and law. This week, we're focusing on Selectable Output Control, which Hollywood and the cable industry are both pushing hard for at the FCC. We invited Kyle McSlarrow, head of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (cable's trade and lobbying group in Washington) to take his best shot at convincing Ars readers of the virtue, wonder, and necessity of SOC. Ars will be publishing its own response from our resident SOC expert, Matt Lasar, tomorrow.

SOC lets content owners exert fine-grained control over the outputs on your A/V gear in order to better protect their "high-value" content. But McSlarrow says that's not as terrifying as it sounds—it's just technological progress in action, and the end result is good for everyone. Convinced, or still skeptical? Let us hear your thoughts in the discussion thread.

How could anyone object to such awesomeness?

A competitive marketplace with a growing list of video providers all vying for consumer attention—cable, satellite, telco, broadband, mobile, Netflix, etc.—has also brought creative thinking about new ways to bring consumers more content when and where they want it.

Kyle McSlarrow

From our vantage point, delivering the latest hit movies to consumers' homes—far earlier than they can watch those movies at home today—is one of the obvious next steps. Why shouldn't you be able to watch the latest movie in the comfort of your own living room (and on your own schedule) months before you can now buy it on DVD or watch it through conventional Video-on-Demand (VOD)?

Consumers, content companies and distributors all benefit if more content is out in the marketplace sooner. Sounds like a slam dunk to me, but surprisingly, some object... and strongly.

The debate about delivering first-run movies to consumer homes earlier than currently available is really quite simple—delivering high-value content has to be done properly in order to protect the security of the material. If movie studios aren’t convinced that their movies, which often represent years of expensive investment, can be protected from unauthorized copying and distribution, consumers won’t get that content... or not as soon as we in the cable industry would like them to.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has set up a process—called the Selectable Output Control (SOC) rule—that would enable us to provide that protection so content owners have the confidence they need to distribute their high-value content sooner.

In 2008, and again recently, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has asked the FCC to support SOC. NCTA has also met with Commission officials to express our support.

SOC does not break your TV

Opposition to SOC from some in the public interest community—led by the group Public Knowledge (PK)—has involved a series of incorrect accusations in letters (here, here, here, and here) and videos urging consumers to “Tell the FCC to Say ‘No’ to the Cable Kill Switch.”

In this video, PK Legal Director Harold Feld argues that SOC "breaks 25 million television sets," and causes your personal devices—such as your TiVo or Slingbox—to no longer function. Feld says that movie studios, as well as cable operators and satellite providers, would “like to be able to remotely turn off your Slingbox, turn off your DVR, turn off anything that’s coming out of the TV set that [they] don’t directly control.”

A recent post in Ars Technica agreed with PK, suggesting that the "output changes [MPAA] wants could, in fact, hobble some home video systems."

If that were the case, I could certainly understand the opposition. But it simply isn’t true. SOC doesn’t break anything, a topic both we and MPAA have addressed repeatedly, including in our Reply Comments last summer.

We noted in those comments that existing devices are not harmed by the use of SOC—if you have a TV set that doesn’t support SOC, then you simply wouldn't be able to order these new movies at all. But nothing in the use of SOC prevents your existing TV from doing all the things it can do now.

The situation is analogous to any early adopter who acquires new equipment which, with the passage of time, cannot access as easily (or at all) new services coming down the road. From computers to cell phones to televisions, that has been and likely always will be the case—something Ars readers probably know more about than most. The important point is that nothing is being taken away from those early adopters, and other consumers with more capable devices will simply have more viewing options. Indeed, there can be no public interest justification for denying new choices to a majority of consumers simply because a small minority cannot avail themselves of those choices.

Critics have also argued that the MPAA’s bid for selectable output control could force some consumers to buy new home theater equipment. But both MPAA and NCTA have demonstrated that an SOC waiver simply means that a consumer's current gear without protected connectors will work exactly the same way it does today, and newer devices with protected connectors (including millions of devices in homes today) will be able to take advantage of the earlier release of movies to cable and satellite customers using SOC.

Should we go back to the original iPod?

When Apple introduced the “Classic” iPod with the ability to rent movies, earlier generation iPods still functioned well, played music, and (for 5G iPods) played video, but they didn’t play rentals. Apple’s release didn’t suddenly render your older version useless, but you needed to purchase the Classic to get access to the video rental library. So while your “older” device may not have all of the features of the latest model, it certainly still works as intended when you bought it and isn’t “screwed up” (another PK reference).

But if you buy into the anti-SOC argument, you would assume that there should have been a massive outcry against the new iPod and its rental feature. Instead, here is what Ars itself had to say on the subject:

"Apple has answered the calls of consumers and critics with a slick, friendly movie rental section. After playing with it for a week, I’m still inclined to say that it’s off to a strong start. Though other services may have a superior catalogs (for now) or integration with other living room devices, none reach iTunes’ signature ease-of-use or integration with the world’s most popular digital media players."

And what did Ars say about restrictions on the use of the new iPod?

"As for why movie rentals have these specific new DRM rules applied to them, they’re clearly conditions enforced by studios interested in locking down their rental content in every way possible. A crack for iTunes DRM is a scary prospect for execs interested in protecting their content and getting paid their dues, and a movie that typically sells for $15-20 at retail getting cracked for as little as $2.99 must be even more insomnia-inducing. These were likely some of the compromises Apple had to make in order to score all the major studios, and perhaps to launch a digital rental section in the first place."

Ars clearly recognized that protection of content played a critical role in content owners being open to providing that content via the iTunes store. The reviewer is exactly right that such protections were likely a prerequisite for iTunes rentals launching at all.

SOC won’t stop piracy altogether, although it will make it more difficult. And the benefits of incorporating adequate content protection that will open up earlier release windows and provide consumers more viewing options clearly outweighs the unproven harms alleged by opponents of the SOC waiver.

Technology changes all the time. And the pace and intensity of innovation across the board in technology, communications networks, and consumer electronics is undoubtedly going to raise these types of issues with greater frequency. I don’t pretend that these issues are necessarily easy. But it does strike me that in order to continue providing consumers more services, more choices and the opportunity to do things they currently can’t do today . . . we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Not all consumers are going to be first adopters; not all technology changes are going to work instantly, seamlessly, and magically on every device currently in the marketplace. Taking practical steps, like approving the SOC waiver, that move us down the path of greater consumer choice is a far better policy choice than standing pat, or pretending that creators of content are going to accept unnecessary risks with their investments.